Locally Decodable/Correctable Codes for Insertions and Deletions

Authors Alexander R. Block, Jeremiah Blocki, Elena Grigorescu, Shubhang Kulkarni, Minshen Zhu

Thumbnail PDF


  • Filesize: 0.57 MB
  • 17 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Alexander R. Block
  • Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
Jeremiah Blocki
  • Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
Elena Grigorescu
  • Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
Shubhang Kulkarni
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, IL, USA
Minshen Zhu
  • Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

Cite AsGet BibTex

Alexander R. Block, Jeremiah Blocki, Elena Grigorescu, Shubhang Kulkarni, and Minshen Zhu. Locally Decodable/Correctable Codes for Insertions and Deletions. In 40th IARCS Annual Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science (FSTTCS 2020). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 182, pp. 16:1-16:17, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2020)


Recent efforts in coding theory have focused on building codes for insertions and deletions, called insdel codes, with optimal trade-offs between their redundancy and their error-correction capabilities, as well as efficient encoding and decoding algorithms. In many applications, polynomial running time may still be prohibitively expensive, which has motivated the study of codes with super-efficient decoding algorithms. These have led to the well-studied notions of Locally Decodable Codes (LDCs) and Locally Correctable Codes (LCCs). Inspired by these notions, Ostrovsky and Paskin-Cherniavsky (Information Theoretic Security, 2015) generalized Hamming LDCs to insertions and deletions. To the best of our knowledge, these are the only known results that study the analogues of Hamming LDCs in channels performing insertions and deletions. Here we continue the study of insdel codes that admit local algorithms. Specifically, we reprove the results of Ostrovsky and Paskin-Cherniavsky for insdel LDCs using a different set of techniques. We also observe that the techniques extend to constructions of LCCs. Specifically, we obtain insdel LDCs and LCCs from their Hamming LDCs and LCCs analogues, respectively. The rate and error-correction capability blow up only by a constant factor, while the query complexity blows up by a poly log factor in the block length. Since insdel locally decodable/correctble codes are scarcely studied in the literature, we believe our results and techniques may lead to further research. In particular, we conjecture that constant-query insdel LDCs/LCCs do not exist.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Error-correcting codes
  • Locally decodable/correctable codes
  • insert-delete channel


  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    PDF Downloads


  1. Joël Alwen, Jeremiah Blocki, and Ben Harsha. Practical graphs for optimal side-channel resistant memory-hard functions. In Bhavani M. Thuraisingham, David Evans, Tal Malkin, and Dongyan Xu, editors, ACM CCS 2017: 24th Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 1001-1017, Dallas, TX, USA, October 31 - November 2 2017. ACM Press. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3133956.3134031.
  2. Joël Alwen, Jeremiah Blocki, and Krzysztof Pietrzak. Sustained space complexity. In Jesper Buus Nielsen and Vincent Rijmen, editors, Advances in Cryptology - EUROCRYPT 2018, Part II, volume 10821 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 99-130, Tel Aviv, Israel, April 29 - May 3 2018. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78375-8_4.
  3. Joshua Brakensiek, Venkatesan Guruswami, and Samuel Zbarsky. Efficient low-redundancy codes for correcting multiple deletions. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 64(5):3403-3410, 2018. Google Scholar
  4. Mark Braverman and Elchanan Mossel. Noisy sorting without resampling. In Shang-Teng Huang, editor, 19th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 268-276, San Francisco, CA, USA, January 20-22 2008. ACM-SIAM. Google Scholar
  5. Aditi Dhagat, Péter Gács, and Peter Winkler. On playing "twenty questions" with a liar. In Greg N. Frederickson, editor, 3rd Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 16-22, Orlando, Florida, USA, January 27-29 1992. ACM-SIAM. Google Scholar
  6. Zeev Dvir, Parikshit Gopalan, and Sergey Yekhanin. Matching vector codes. SIAM J. Comput., 40(4):1154-1178, 2011. Google Scholar
  7. Klim Efremenko. 3-query locally decodable codes of subexponential length. SIAM J. Comput., 41(6):1694-1703, 2012. Google Scholar
  8. Paul Erdös, Ronald L. Graham, and Endre Szemerédi. On sparse graphs with dense long paths, 1975. Google Scholar
  9. Uriel Feige, Prabhakar Raghavan, David Peleg, and Eli Upfal. Computing with noisy information. SIAM J. Comput., 23(5):1001–1018, October 1994. URL: https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539791195877.
  10. Barbara Geissmann, Stefano Leucci, Chih-Hung Liu, and Paolo Penna. Sorting with recurrent comparison errors, September 2017. Google Scholar
  11. Venkatesan Guruswami, Bernhard Haeupler, and Amirbehshad Shahrasbi. Optimally resilient codes for list-decoding from insertions and deletions. In Konstantin Makarychev, Yury Makarychev, Madhur Tulsiani, Gautam Kamath, and Julia Chuzhoy, editors, Proccedings of the 52nd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2020, Chicago, IL, USA, June 22-26, 2020, pages 524-537. ACM, 2020. Google Scholar
  12. Venkatesan Guruswami and Ray Li. Coding against deletions in oblivious and online models. In Artur Czumaj, editor, Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2018, New Orleans, LA, USA, January 7-10, 2018, pages 625-643. SIAM, 2018. Google Scholar
  13. Venkatesan Guruswami and Ray Li. Polynomial time decodable codes for the binary deletion channel. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 65(4):2171-2178, 2018. Google Scholar
  14. Venkatesan Guruswami and Ray Li. Polynomial time decodable codes for the binary deletion channel. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 65(4):2171-2178, 2019. Google Scholar
  15. Venkatesan Guruswami and Carol Wang. Deletion codes in the high-noise and high-rate regimes. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 63(4):1961-1970, 2017. Google Scholar
  16. Bernhard Haeupler. Optimal document exchange and new codes for insertions and deletions. In David Zuckerman, editor, 60th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2019, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, November 9-12, 2019, pages 334-347. IEEE Computer Society, 2019. Google Scholar
  17. Bernhard Haeupler, Aviad Rubinstein, and Amirbehshad Shahrasbi. Near-linear time insertion-deletion codes and (1+ε)-approximating edit distance via indexing. In Moses Charikar and Edith Cohen, editors, Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2019, Phoenix, AZ, USA, June 23-26, 2019, pages 697-708. ACM, 2019. Google Scholar
  18. Bernhard Haeupler and Amirbehshad Shahrasbi. Synchronization strings: codes for insertions and deletions approaching the singleton bound. In Hamed Hatami, Pierre McKenzie, and Valerie King, editors, Proceedings of the 49th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2017, Montreal, QC, Canada, June 19-23, 2017, pages 33-46. ACM, 2017. Google Scholar
  19. Bernhard Haeupler and Amirbehshad Shahrasbi. Synchronization strings: explicit constructions, local decoding, and applications. In Ilias Diakonikolas, David Kempe, and Monika Henzinger, editors, Proceedings of the 50th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2018, Los Angeles, CA, USA, June 25-29, 2018, pages 841-854. ACM, 2018. Google Scholar
  20. Bernhard Haeupler, Amirbehshad Shahrasbi, and Madhu Sudan. Synchronization strings: List decoding for insertions and deletions. In Ioannis Chatzigiannakis, Christos Kaklamanis, Dániel Marx, and Donald Sannella, editors, 45th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, ICALP 2018, July 9-13, 2018, Prague, Czech Republic, volume 107 of LIPIcs, pages 76:1-76:14. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2018. Google Scholar
  21. Richard M. Karp and Robert Kleinberg. Noisy binary search and its applications. In Nikhil Bansal, Kirk Pruhs, and Clifford Stein, editors, 18th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 881-890, New Orleans, LA, USA, January 7-9 2007. ACM-SIAM. Google Scholar
  22. Jonathan Katz and Luca Trevisan. On the efficiency of local decoding procedures for error-correcting codes. In STOC, pages 80-86, 2000. Google Scholar
  23. Iordanis Kerenidis and Ronald de Wolf. Exponential lower bound for 2-query locally decodable codes via a quantum argument. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 69(3):395-420, 2004. Google Scholar
  24. Marcos Kiwi, Martin Loebl, and Jiri Matousek. Expected length of the longest common subsequence for large alphabets. Google Scholar
  25. Rolf Klein, Rainer Penninger, Christian Sohler, and David P. Woodruff. Tolerant algorithms. In Camil Demetrescu and Magnús M. Halldórsson, editors, Algorithms - ESA 2011, pages 736-747, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2011. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Google Scholar
  26. Swastik Kopparty, Or Meir, Noga Ron-Zewi, and Shubhangi Saraf. High-rate locally correctable and locally testable codes with sub-polynomial query complexity. J. ACM, 64(2):11:1-11:42, 2017. Google Scholar
  27. Swastik Kopparty and Shubhangi Saraf. Guest column: Local testing and decoding of high-rate error-correcting codes. SIGACT News, 47(3):46-66, 2016. Google Scholar
  28. Swastik Kopparty, Shubhangi Saraf, and Sergey Yekhanin. High-rate codes with sublinear-time decoding. J. ACM, 61(5):28:1-28:20, 2014. Google Scholar
  29. Vladimir Iosifovich Levenshtein. Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady, 10(8):707-710, 1966. Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR, V163 No4 845-848 1965. Google Scholar
  30. Shu Liu, Ivan Tjuawinata, and Chaoping Xing. On list decoding of insertion and deletion errors. CoRR, abs/1906.09705, 2019. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1906.09705.
  31. Hugues Mercier, Vijay K. Bhargava, and Vahid Tarokh. A survey of error-correcting codes for channels with symbol synchronization errors. IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials, 12, 2010. Google Scholar
  32. Michael Mitzenmacher. A survey of results for deletion channels and related synchronization channels, July 2008. Google Scholar
  33. Rafail Ostrovsky and Anat Paskin-Cherniavsky. Locally decodable codes for edit distance. In Anja Lehmann and Stefan Wolf, editors, Information Theoretic Security, pages 236-249, Cham, 2015. Springer International Publishing. Google Scholar
  34. L. J. Schulman and D. Zuckerman. Asymptotically good codes correcting insertions, deletions, and transpositions. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 45(7):2552-2557, 1999. Google Scholar
  35. N.J.A. Sloane. On single-deletion-correcting codes. arXiv: Combinatorics, 2002. Google Scholar
  36. Madhu Sudan, Luca Trevisan, and Salil P. Vadhan. Pseudorandom generators without the XOR lemma (abstract). In CCC, page 4, 1999. Google Scholar
  37. David P. Woodruff. A quadratic lower bound for three-query linear locally decodable codes over any field. J. Comput. Sci. Technol., 27(4):678-686, 2012. Google Scholar
  38. Sergey Yekhanin. Towards 3-query locally decodable codes of subexponential length. J. ACM, 55(1):1:1-1:16, 2008. Google Scholar
  39. Sergey Yekhanin. Locally decodable codes. Foundations and Trends in Theoretical Computer Science, 6(3):139-255, 2012. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing

Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail